Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 134 Okla. 243 - Beardsley v. Stephens

Beardsley v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis

1928

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
June 1958
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 1958

1 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

1401928193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Vrooman v. . Turner · Sawyer v. Bahnsen · Winans v. Hare · Van Eman v. Mosing · Fry v. Ausman

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It has also been repeatedly held that, where a grantee buys property subject to a mortgage, which he does not assume and agree to pay, said grantee does not become personally liable for the payment of the mortgage. Bailey v. State, 72 Okla. 203 , 179 P. 615 ; Van Eman v. Mosing, 36 Okla. 555 , 129 P. 2 . These cases are based on the theory that, unless it otherwise affirmatively appears, the purchaser is buying only the equity of redemption.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““We believe that the intention of an assumption clause in a deed is for the purpose of indemnifying the grantor, and that the only theory on which a mortgagee can-sue a grantee who assumes the payment of a mortgage is that said assumption is for the purpose of granting additional security for the debt already existing.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.